1. ' The Criminal Petitions Nos.102 and 104 of 1995, are directed against the order dated 23rd February, 1995 passed by District Magistrate, Ziarat and against the appellate order dated 18th September, 1995, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, dismissed the appeals filed by petitioners, holding that no illegality or irregularity in the order of District Magistrate, Ziarat, has been shown.
2. ' Precisely the facts are that District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Ziarat, vide impugned order directed petitioners to furnish bonds with sureties for good behaviour valuing rupees two lacs each.
3. Petitioners resisted directions, as such, they were put behind the bars. However later on they got themselves released by furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of concerned authority.
4. Thereafter notices were challenged by filing Appeals Nos.1 and 2 of 1995, before the Sessions Judge, which came up on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta for disposal. Both the appeals were rejected. Thus instant criminal revisions have been filed.
5. ' Mr. Ehsanul Haque learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contended that action of District Magistrate in demanding sureties with bonds for good behaviour from the petitioners is absolutely illegal, unjust and unwarranted in view of the provisions of section 109, Cr.P.C. He further emphasised that petitioners are Zamindars and Transporters of the said area and civil litigation concerning route permits of the buses being plied by them on Quetta Route is going on with rival transporters and in the garb of those proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner issued impugned notice/direction, which is not warranted under the law.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Karim Yousafzai, learned counsel for State, attempted to support the order and advanced arguments that as civil litigation is going on between the parties, therefore, the District Magistrate was justified in making directions to petitioner for furnishing bonds for good behavior record. I have heard the parties' counsel and have also examined available.
7. ' Under section 109, Cr.P.C. The District Magistrate is competent to require a person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour, if on receiving information he is of the opinion that such person is taking precautions to conceal his presence within the local limits of his jurisdiction and there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precaution with a view to commit any offence, or a person residing within his jurisdiction, has no ostensible means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself, competently can be called upon him to furnish bond with sureties for his good behaviour.
8. Unless these ingredients are not satisfied, the District Magistrate even cannot issue a show cause notice merely on flimsy ground that a civil litigation is going on between the parties, therefore, such person should furnish bond with sureties for his good behaviour. The object and purpose of exercising jurisdiction under section 109, Cr.P.C. By a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate is to curb the activities of vagabonds and loafers so they may be prevented from taking precautionary measures to commit crime against the Society. Undoubtedly no preventive measures under section 109, Cr.P.C. Can be taken by a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate against an ordinary citizen.
9. ' Admittedly the petitioners are neither vagabonds nor loafers. In as much as no criminal cases are pending against them in the Court of District Magistrate, Ziarat, therefore, they were not required to furnish bonds with sureties for their good behaviour. It is also noteworthy that District Magistrate initiated action against petitioners under section 109, Cr.P.C. Without properly adhering to the mandatory provisions of law relating to issue of show-cause notice to them before calling upon to furnish bonds with sureties for their good behaviour.
10. ' I am constrained to observe that District Magistrate, Ziarat probably had no basic knowledge about different provisions of law and even does not know that how proceedings against a person under a particular provision are to be initiated and perhaps due to this reason impugned directions were issued against petitioners on 23rd February, 1995.
11. Thus, it is held that the District Magistrate, Ziarat has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners for furnishing bonds with sureties for their good behaviour, in the garb of civil litigation pending between the parties and such action being without jurisdiction deserves to be declared SO.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 23-2-1995 passed by Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Ziarat and order dated 18-9-1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, are set aside and bonds with sureties furnished by petitioners are discharged.
13. ' This constitutes the reasonings of my short order of the even date.
14. Revision .